/p/
Toledo Talk forums search sign-up login
How We Beat the Boot
Parking boots are public property
Deflating the tire
The hubcap plate
The jaw-to-frame pins
The arm itself
The padlock keys

How to remove a boot from a car

Combat Toledo's tyrannical government.

You know the city is in dire straits when it's dependent upon revenue generated from red light and speeding cameras. The destitute city needs more people driving dangerously through intersections.

It's common knowledge, well it is for some, that if you get a camera ticket, don't pay it. Simply ignore the collection calls. Nothing will happen.

But now Toledo tyrants are moving into plan B by planning to boot vehicles that have not paid their camera fines.

March 3, 2010 WTVG story

It's already bringing in money and it's not even on the books yet. Council's decision Tuesday to let police go after unpaid red light tickets has Toledoans rushing to pay their tickets.

Chief Navarre smiled as he told 13abc that the phone's been ringing off the hook in the parking department. People are trying to get their camera tickets paid before their cars get towed.

Chief Mike Navarre is enjoying the new red light enforcement policy. He says, "This is a list of everyone in Toledo that has 10 or more unpaid violations." Because he can now go after the most apathetic offenders, the city estimates it can collect about $1.2 million this year in unpaid red light tickets.

The new ordinance lets the police put a mechanical boot on cars belonging to anyone with two or more outstanding red light tickets. Navarre explains, "First, a police officer puts boot on a car. If still don't pay tickets, it gets towed.

Whoa, wait a minute. That nimrod Navarre said the cameras were never about being a money grab. Navarre said the cameras were all about safety. So why is this punk smiling and enjoying Toledo city council's new tyrannical red light camera decision? Because for years, Navarre has been a douchebag politician and not a police officer.

June 22, 2009 - Toledo Blade - story :

Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre said money is absolutely not the reason for the cameras. "I believe in the red-light camera[s] and they have been proven just by the very fact there is a drop in violations at the intersections where they are installed," Chief Navarre said. "If less people are going through red lights, there are going to be less accidents."

An untrustworthy police chief. The fact that Bell kept Navarre around reflects poorly on Bell, and it's more proof that no real change has occurred on the Toledo mayor's throne. When Czarty started his third term, he fired Navarre and hired Jack Smith. But Smith refused to be a stooge for Czarty, so Navarre got rehired and now retained by Carty Bell.


Feb 6, 2010 - Thurber's Thoughts - Will new Toledo law violate Constitutional due process?

It's still up in the air whether the cameras are even legal. And now Toledo could be entering even more illegal waters.


Google search: how to remove a boot from a car

June 2007 - How to Remove a Parking Boot - A Quick and Easy Contribution to Anarchy

Wikipedia: Denver Boot

How We Beat the Boot

http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/boot.html

Reprinted without permission from the Thistle, December 8, 1993
[who got it from some unidentified San Francisco alternative paper]

Parking boots are public property

The parking-control officers who attach them to your wheels intend for them to stay there until you've paid off your fines. Removing the boot without authorization, or damaging it in any way, is a crime.

Nevertheless, in cities like Denver and Boston, where the boot has been a part of life for years, the contraptions occasionally disappear. In some cities, more than 10 percent of the boot stock has vanished or been rendered inoperable.

That came as no surprise to the mechanical experts who examined our boot. The boot, they say, is nowhere near as tough as it looks. Anyone with less than $30 worth of basic hand tools and enough dexterity to screw in a light bulb can probably break the boot's grip on a car wheel in about ten minutes.

The boot is designed to intimidate, our experts say; its toughest parts are the ones that would be the most obvious targets for boot-busting vandals -- the lock mechanism, for example. With a special tamper-resistant padlock surrounded by a box made of quarter-inch carbon steel plates, the lock will stand up to just about anything short of a low-yield nuclear device. So our bootbusters ignored the lock and looked for other less-obvious places where the boot could be attacked. It took them no time to discover several major weak points in the boot's protective armor.

Deflating the tire

If the boot is going to work properly, it must be properly installed, and that's not an easy process -- especially in the dark, when you have a long night of boot-installing ahead. If the installation is even a bit sloppy (that is, if the jaws that attach the boot to the wheel are a little bit loose), it's often possible to remove the boot by letting the air out of the tire and simply sliding the whole thing off.

This is by far the simplest strategy. It doesn't always work -- conscientious installer can prevent it almost every time, and some car wheels don't leave enough room for the process anyway. But veterans of boot-happy cities have told us they've removed dozens of boots this way, quickly, quietly, and easily.

The hubcap plate

A key element to the boot's effectiveness is its ability to prevent car-owners from getting access to the lug nuts on the booted wheel. Once the lug nuts are accessible, the wheel can be removed and replaced with a spare tire, and the car can be driven away.

If the boot is properly installed, the plate will be tightly secured over the hubcaps, making it impossible event to imagine loosening the lug nuts. But the plate is one of the more flimsy parts of the boot; it's attached by a half-inch swivel pin that is spot-welded to the frame. As our boot-busting experts explained, spot welds that hold together two pieces of metal of different thicknesses are inherently weak. There are several such welds on the boot, and this one is especially vulnerable.

With a common battery-powered drill and a 15-cent grinding wheel or "cut-off tool", one of our experts was able to grind away most of the weld on the pin in about two minutes. With a five-dollar cold chisel and a standard hammer, he did the same job even faster.

Once the weld is broken, a quick blow with a hammer forced the pin out, releasing the plate from the boot frame and making it easy to change the tire and drive away, leaving the old, boot-laden tire behind (or safely stowed in the trunk as a souvenir).

The jaw-to-frame pins

The main frame of the boot -- the "arm" -- fit into a pair of metal pins on the wheel-clamp, or "jaw". The pins are a central element of the boot's structure. They're also one of its weakest links.

The pins are only about an inch long. when the boot is installed, they appear to be connected to each other through some sort of thick, central rod. In fact, they're just stuck into holes drilled in the frame, and spot-welded at the bottom.

Even when the boot is assembled, there's plenty of free play between the arm and the pins. A few strong, sharp blows with a hammer on the top of the pins quickly breaks them free and makes them easy to remove. With those pins gone, the boot comes apart immediately.

The welds holding the lock-box to the frame. For all the effort that the bootmakers put into developing an impregnable locking mechanism, it's amazing how loosely the lock-box is attached to the rest of the boot. Four flimsy spot-welds hold the entire padlock-and-cover-plate assembly to the main boot frame. It took an expert just a few seconds to chip away one of the welds with a chisel and hammer; when one of our spastic, incompetent, weak-wristed editors tried it on a second weld a few days later, it took less than a minute.

Once the lock-box is liberated from the frame, the entire boot can be dismantled and removed quickly with a ratchet and standard (16-inch) spark-plug socket.

The arm itself

If all else fails, our experts discovered that they could actually cut through the tough-looking steel of the main arm with a battery-powered drill and a cut-off tool. forget the oxyacetylene torches and the nitric acid -- the boot arm cuts like butter with a cheap hobbyist's tool. By our calculations, a standard drill-and-cut-off tool set-up can cut through the main arm in less than ten minutes.

The padlock keys

When the parking-control officers come to remove a boot, the first thing they have to do is unlock the padlock. Since the city is buying about 100 of the monsters, it seems highly unlikely that every boot will have a different key. In other cities, like Denver, a single master key unlocks them all.

That means, of course, that an anarchist thug with a penchant for trouble-making (or a wily hustler with an eye for a quick profit) could easily dismantle and remove the boot from some poor innocent scofflaw's illegally parked car, take the thing home, bust the lock off and pay a less-than-scrupulous locksmith to make up a new key -- a key that would instantly unlock every boot in the city.

Of course, the city can always change all the padlocks on a regular basis (although they don't come cheap). But if we know this city, the pirates will soon be making and selling the keys faster than the cops can replace the locks, forcing the taxpayers to pour ever-increasing sums of money into a parking-law-enforcement mechanism that is neither appropriate nor effective for San Francisco.

created by jr on Mar 03, 2010 at 11:12:06 pm
updated by jr on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:13:14 pm
    Home     Comments: 67

source      versions

tags: toledo   politics   moronism   

Related articles
Toledo Blade to publish from stolen LCRP Chair notebook - Apr 08, 2010
Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner Snubs Toledo Express Airport Again - Jun 18, 2009
Brownstones on Dorr Street project - August 2008 update - Aug 19, 2008
Bad idea proposed by Teamwork Toledo - Aug 30, 2009
Carty Finkbeiner rumored to run for Toledo City Council in 2011 - Jul 21, 2010
more >>

Comments ... #

What's the problem? As citizens we all have an interest in obeying the traffic and parking laws. If we don't follow the laws and get caught, we should pay the fine. Used to be just about everyone believed this was the way we should conduct business. These days, everyone want to have an angle, and find a way to scam the systems. This is why our nation is going down the tubes.

posted by ilovetoledo on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:20:56 pm     #  

Just more of the me me me mentality. The same people who say they don’t want to live in a “nanny” state being told what to do – yet they act like babies. Pay your damn fines that you brought upon yourself and you wouldn’t have to worry about it. Or better yet, don’t disobey traffic laws. You are not above them.

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:29:11 pm     #  

Boots? In Toledo? OMG!!! Has anyone ever watched the show on the Pennsylvania Parking Authority..... Sends shivers up my spine just thinking about it. They also did a follow-up serious on Detroit. What a mess.

posted by golddustwoman on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:41:27 pm     #  

I knew someone who once removed a boot from their car with a sledge hammer. He was arrested and charged with something like destruction of public property. Also, he had to pay $600 for a new boot and the fines he had built up.

posted by ilovetoledo on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:45:55 pm     #  

Not to sound self-righteous, but I have driven in Toledo for over 32 years and have never gotten any kind of traffic or parking ticket.

posted by ilovetoledo on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:50:27 pm     #  

Here's a surefire way to get around the boot problem. DON'T BREAK THE LAWS. And if you do, pay the fine.

Simple, really.

posted by toledolen_ on Mar 04, 2010 at 01:57:36 pm     #  

It's a simple choice between higher taxes, reduced services, or fining those who break the law - SCREW the scofflaws. Boot early, boot often. Drive smart and you never have to worry about it.

posted by bam2 on Mar 04, 2010 at 02:28:55 pm     #  

"If we don't follow the laws and get caught ..."

Caught by whom? A camera?

You pro-booters, your collective ignorance on this issue is staggering yet not surprising. Due to your embarrassingly shallow-minded views on the subject, you miss the point, and that's one reason why the city is going down the tubes.

Too many people exist without any critical thinking ability, and this pleases government. Too many people submit to government. The refuse fee was due to concern for the environment. The intersection cameras were due to concern for our safety. Wrong and wrong. They are government revenue streams.


Feb 26, 2010 - Thurber's Thoughts - Red-light/speed cameras: fundamental fallacy and Ohio's Constitution :

... nothing quite says it all as this quote from Barnet Fagel, a a traffic researcher and a highway safety advocate with motorist advocacy group the National Motorists Association:

“There’s no need for cameras if intersections are safe,” explains Fagel. “Cameras document traffic engineering errors. They don’t prevent collisions, they only record them.”

"If an intersection is properly engineered you don’t need cameras. I feel as long as intersections are inherently unsafe they will be profitable for the camera company and the village.”

Toledo never did a traffic engineering study on any of the intersections they claimed were so unsafe that they needed red-light cameras. They did not attempt to determine the cause of the claimed safety issues in order to determine what the best solution would be. Nor did they try any of the recommended solutions (longer yellow lights, all red lights in every direction prior to the next scheduled green light, etc...) to see if a non-big-brother type of change would work.

Since they didn't actually try to address any of the claimed safety issues, many conclude (rightly, in my opinion) that the issue really isn't safety, but money.

Even if you're a fan of the cameras, you should oppose them if they violate our state Constitution. If Toledo can enter this type of arrangement, what else can they do? The slippery-slope argument is certainly a valid one in Toledo, especially considering that they started with red-light cameras and then added the speed cameras when revenue began to decline.

If the traffic laws supposedly exist to increase safety, then why not study the so-called dangerous intersections to find engineering ways to make the intersections safer? Re-engineering the intersections could modify the human behavior of some drivers to make the intersections safer for all.

But Toledo will never improve the safety of intersections to reduce speeders and red-light runners because that will cut into the city's revenue stream. Toledo government is banking on the currently designed intersections. For Toledo government, danger is profitable.

posted by jr on Mar 04, 2010 at 02:34:55 pm     #  

So using your logic cameras should not be in banks and stores to deter theft? And in turn should not be used in a court of law as proof?

It’s apples and apples.

I never understood the mentality of people so pissy about red light cameras. I don’t care if they said they installed them so strippers could swing on them during their daily jog. They are there and are catching moving violations, period.

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 02:41:25 pm     #  

I have no respect for those who just want to get around the fact that if they break the law they need to pay the fine.

posted by deere1 on Mar 04, 2010 at 02:44:33 pm     #  

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they are constitutional when they considered whether Chicago's red light camera ordinance meets the requirements of the rational-basis test under equal protection and due process jurisprudence. The Supreme Court's past due process decisions suggest they won't have an issue with that aspect either. We'll have to see if further challenges go anywhere. Until then, pay your tickets. Or better yet, avoid breaking the law and no cameras will be triggered.

posted by bam2 on Mar 04, 2010 at 03:44:19 pm     #  

I wager that obeying traffic laws is easier then removing a boot.

posted by OhioKimono on Mar 04, 2010 at 03:48:15 pm     #  

"So using your logic cameras should not be in banks and stores to deter theft? And in turn should not be used in a court of law as proof? It’s apples and apples."

I don't see how the two are related.

What's interesting is a bank robber who gets caught is presumed innocent, correct? It's up to someone else to prove the bank robber is guilty, right?

But for Toledo's intersection camera "laws," the owner of the vehicle is presumed guilty even if the owner of the vehicle was not driving when the camera violation occurred. It's up to the vehicle owner to prove innocence or to locate the real guilty person. Shockingly some households have multiple members who share the same vehicle(s).

June 2009 - Thurber's Thoughts - City still claims cameras are about safety, not money :

And before you start in on the 'if you don't break the law' arguments, this is not about whether or not you should run a red light or speed to get through an intersection when the light is getting ready to change to red. You shouldn't do those things.

But if you do, you deserve to have your day in court where you can challenge the accuser and question the accuracy, where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and where your rights under the Constitution are protected - not ignored. That doesn't happen with the cameras.

Under Toledo's law, the picture is prima facie evidence that you've violated the law and the camera is presumed correct and no challenge to the accuracy is possible.

Additionally, if you are the registered owner of the vehicle, you are the guilty person. If you prove you were not driving the vehicle because you were out of town at the time of the infraction, you still must pay unless you name the guilty party. Know of any other offense where the only way you are not charged is to find the guilty party yourself???

Finally, you do not have the same rights as others accused of violating a traffic law because the city treats this as a civil offense - not a criminal one - so no right to a trial or representation, etc.

This is not about safety. Despite the claims by the police chief, the accident date has been referenced but not released. Every other city that has implemented these cameras has seen accidents increase, despite the decrease in the type of accidents caused by running a red light. Those cities realized they just exchanged one type of accident for another.

Besides, if it was really about safety, the city would have done what the National Traffic Safety Board has recommended: conduct a study of the intersection and its approaches to determine WHY there are red-light accidents and address those problems first.

And more related to Ryan's bank camera example:

For those who see nothing wrong with such a set-up, I must ask: should the city be able to do the same with a photograph of a get-away car in a bank robbery? We all agree that the person shouldn't be robbing a bank or helping with robbing a bank. But would you support a system that presumes the guilt of the owner of a vehicle based upon such a photograph? Would you support a presumption of guilt for that person with the only defense being to name the driver if it wasn't the accused? Would you support imposing the penalty for such a crime without a court hearing that was open to the public?

posted by jr on Mar 04, 2010 at 04:09:10 pm     #  

They have video footage of your car running a red light when you go to court. It’s not just some black and white photo of your license plate.

I really am curious as to why someone of your intelligence would actually think that they should be allowed to break the law just because a police officer wasn’t around to dole out the ticket. I guess if someone broke into your house and nobody was there to see it you would not accept photographic proof to press charges; right?

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 04:14:52 pm     #  

JR,I've been ticketed three times by the "red light" camera at South and the Anthony Wayne Trail. Each time I paid because I knew (even after I'd just gone through) that I had violated the law. I guess that was the way I was raised. You violate the law, you pay the price. I guess that is why I would never make a good businessman. I could never squirm out of something.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Mar 04, 2010 at 04:19:50 pm     #  

And the whole “other drive” plea is really desperate and grasping at straws. I don’t think there are too many people who own cars that have random strangers driving them. Not only that, but when I went to court I could actually tell it was me and that was without them blowing it up. All you are doing is trying to weasel out of something and calling it critical thinking.

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 04:28:06 pm     #  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3112670.stm - for a bit of humor check this out. In the UK there is a 'superhero' who runs around removing traffic boots. "Clad in a blue leotard and wielding a saw, a man claiming to be the UK's first wheel clamp vigilante is offering his services to motorists. Angle-grinder Man - a self-proclaimed superhero - patrols by night looking for unhappy drivers who have been clamped and then sets their cars free."

posted by OhioKimono on Mar 04, 2010 at 04:50:21 pm     #  

"All you are doing is trying to weasel out of something and calling it critical thinking."

Incorrect. Sorry my friend, but I'm not weaseling out of anything. I've never been ticketed in Toledo, and I've never received a camera citation anywhere. Many years ago, I got nailed by a police officer for driving 30 or 35 mph late one night in desolate downtown Woodville. Even today, I still push my car through Woodville to make sure I don't exceed their 17 mph speed limit.

"... they should be allowed to break the law just because a police officer wasn’t around to dole out the ticket."

I never said I supported dangerous driving. But following your thinking, if the city wants some cash, why not install speed cameras over I-75 and I-475 from near downtown Toledo, west toward Sylvania where the speed limit is mostly 60 mph? Everyone obeys the 60 mph speed limit in this area, right? No? Well then the cameras will issue a ton of citations.

Why are we limiting the installation of traffic enforcement cameras to some intersections?

Why not expand the camera enforcement to more roadways to collect more money so our taxes won't be raised? I'm a convert. You sold me. If it means MY taxes won't be raised, then I want more cameras nailing more dunderheads on the roads. Cameras everywhere in Toledo won't bother me because I know I'm a safe driver. I only drive like a Michigander when I'm in Michigan where the speed limit is just a suggestion.

Why should drivers be permitted to drive 70-plus miles an hour on the I-75/475 loop within Toledo city limits just because a police officer isn’t around to dole out the ticket? Accidents happen on these roads. Install speed cameras. We can collect from out-of-town drivers passing through. Problem is, the state may get the money instead of the city. But Toledo police used to set up with radar along I-75 through downtown Toledo. That motorcycle dude was always well-hidden.

In Arizona, 50 speed cameras will be deployed on highways by September with another 50 by January at a cost of about $20 million. The state hopes to raise $90 million a year by imposing $165 fines on vehicles going 10 mph over the speed limit or faster.

Maybe Toledo can work out a deal with the state or federal government to get revenue enhancement speed enforcement cameras installed at several locations on the highways within Toledo city limits. Add I-280 to the mix.

Or just add speed cameras to Toledo roads like four-lane, drag strip Douglas Road between Sylvania and Laskey. Put speed cameras in school zones. Unfortunately, these speed cameras will have the negative side effect of enticing people to slow down, which will make the roads safer and cut into the city's revenue collections. But that should not be a deterrent to putting more glass eyes in the sky.

posted by jr on Mar 04, 2010 at 06:12:58 pm     #  

if they install traffic cameras on 475 i'm going to go broke very quickly

posted by upso on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:03:53 pm     #  

So your beef with the red light cameras is that they are not everywhere along with speeding cameras? Okay - that makes sense???

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:07:03 pm     #  

Talk about putting boots and hub-locks on peoples cars.

I remember when I was a student at The University of Toledo, in the mid to late 1990's. One day I drove my moutain-bike to campus, because the weather was exceptionally nice. I used to live near Jo-Joe's Pizza on Monroe street.

Anyway, I get to campus, I lock-up my bike and go to class. When I get out of class, I find a card-board tag (warning notice) attached to my bike. It said that if I locked my bike to a telephone or light pole again, they were going to put a lock on my bike. Then I would have to pay a FINE to get the lock removed.

I should have kept my eyes out for old bicycles in people's trash, in the warm months. I could have driven these junker bikes to campus and then used a junk chain and cheap lock to secure it to a light pole. Then walk home and let them put their lock on it. I'd never come back to claim these garbage bikes. I should have done that about 6 or 7 times......just to F--K with them.

posted by WalterAnthony on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:18:51 pm     #  

Here is a great website dedicated to the politics of driving and traffic laws.

The latest stories and cases from across the United States & Europe get posted here. Be sure to click on the ARCHIVES - button.

www.TheNewspaper.com

posted by WalterAnthony on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:22:13 pm     #  

February 2008 posting: Toledo Traffic Camera Locations.

25 cameras installed. I assume more exist today, but I don't know. I sure hope more cameras exist today in Toledo. 25 is pretty wimpy. I think the fine is $120, but that's too low.

Since the majority find this acceptable, then 100 to 200 camera locations and a 50 to 100 percent increase in the fine has to be even better.

When government needs more money, they increase the sin tax on tobacco, which I don't care about because I don't smoke.

Similar situation here for traffic camera revenue. Simply add more cameras and increase the fines, which will also not bother me because my insurance company knows what a wonderful driver I am. I'm one of the oddities who doesn't mind driving the speed limit and slowing to a stop when the light turns yellow. Except in Michigan, of course.

And with city council's latest resolution to boot or tow vehicles in order to increase collections, altogether it should mean several million dollars a year in revenue for the city, and that will hopefully prevent or reduce tax increases that would affect me.

I think city government is also trying to negotiate a better payout rate with the camera company. Hope it works. Maybe adding more cameras will be part of the negotiations. More is better.

I'm on-board. If my taxes won't change, then I'm all for more cameras, bigger fines, and stronger collection practices. Thanks for setting me straight. See, viewpoints can be changed on a message board.

Carty Bell is looking for out of the box ideas to reduce the budget deficit. Well, how about doubling the number of traffic enforcement cameras and increasing the fines. I'll try to submit that idea to the city's new Web site FutureOfToledo.org.

"So your beef with the red light cameras is that they are not everywhere along with speeding cameras? Okay - that makes sense???"

How does it not make sense? If 25 cameras are better than 5, then 100 cameras are better than 25, and so on.

posted by jr on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:46:43 pm     #  

Oh nevermind, I see what your game plan is now. I don't have the time.

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:48:37 pm     #  

From Ryan: I never understood the mentality of people so pissy about red light cameras.

That's because you're dense. If you were intelligent, you'd understand. See?

Look Stupid. Try and think. I know it's painful, but just try real hard anyway.

1. It's about the denial of due process of law. The city of Toledo is denying accused violators due process, which is unconstitutional.

2. It's about the edge of the wedge, and I don't mean that nasty wedgie that those mean boys in PhysEd gave you. If the city can deny the citizens due process for what is actually a moving violation, what's to stop them from expanding into other areas? Nothing. They are limited only by their own imaginations (and we may be thankful for that).

3. It promotes the apathetic compliance of the populace. If the city can get the populace to comply either by their own apathy or by their own Draconian laws and punishments, then we the people have lost a part of our freedom.

This is the edge of the wedge, the beginning of tyranny, an indication of fascism, and you are so incredibly fucking stupid and ignorant that you're actually championing the city government's efforts.

Go and lick the boot that kicks you, child.

posted by madjack on Mar 04, 2010 at 07:53:00 pm     #  

So you're against em'? LOL!

May you get a ticket tomorrow as you run a red light that you didn't see because your nose was up in the air.

Tool.

posted by Ryan on Mar 04, 2010 at 08:13:54 pm     #  

hey times are tough. Give me an address and car decription and $50 and it'll be gone.

posted by hockeyfan on Mar 04, 2010 at 08:23:00 pm     #  

"I see what your game plan is now."

And that would be what? It's simple government mathematics. Government uses smokers to fund public schools, the arts, and so on. That's my inspiration for the idea of placing the burden of funding Toledo government on the backs of bad drivers. And to bamboozle the public, we can falsely claim this plan is about safer roadways.

If more cameras are added and the fines increased combined with the new, tougher collection methods, then I think the city can raise enough annual revenue that the city will not have to eliminate the tax reciprocity. I'll have to crunch the numbers to see if that's true. Problem is, how long will it take to install the new revenue-generating cameras? It's simple to eliminate the tax reciprocity.

Higher taxes is a reason to move away, but more cameras is not a reason to leave. Simply drive more responsible. Let the idiots fund government.

But as more people driver safer, Toledo will have to add more cameras and increase the fines again. But this can work.

I think I'll pass this idea on to my District 5 councilman Tom Waniewski.

posted by jr on Mar 04, 2010 at 08:31:09 pm     #  

This is a very disturbing thread. I can't believe how many people on this forum are in support of more gov't control in our lives.

posted by muddyriverduck on Mar 05, 2010 at 09:51:59 am     #  

I find it very disturbing that so many people have so little respect for the law.

posted by ilovetoledo on Mar 05, 2010 at 10:23:17 am     #  

I find it disturbing that people aren't advocating for the aggressive expansion of traffic enforcement cameras to enforce the laws in more areas and raise revenue for the city. If you love Toledo, then you cannot endorse selective enforcement of the laws by accepting only 25 or so cameras. What about all the other areas of the city where driving laws are being violated, but cameras do not exist to record these violations? Toledo should at least double or triple the number of cameras over the next year, and then keep adding more cameras every couple years.

Toledo was a leader in this area.

May 2008 Toledo City Paper article

Toledo was the first city in Ohio to use red light camera technology, starting with ten intersections in 2001. Since then, the number of intersections using red light cameras has gone from 10 to 26, with a new contract signed in December 2007 that could have the number at 40 cameras by 2012. The five-year contract also included upping the fines from $90 to $120 per ticket, and capping Redflex’s percentage of that fine at $55. The former agreement had Toledo keeping only 25 percent of the ticket revenue; the new one has the city collecting 55 percent.

40 cameras by 2012? That's it? Toledo should have at least three times that many by 2012. Plus, raise the fine to $150 or $180, and negotiate a better cut with the camera company.

This is another missed opportunity by Toledo government. All these years and we only have a couple dozen or so cameras. The city has missed out on a lot of revenue by not aggressively expanding the camera locations sooner. And this increased camera revenue may have meant no tax increase proposals today.

posted by jr on Mar 05, 2010 at 10:56:42 am     #  

Are the Toledo Police going to come on to peoples property and slap a boot on their car, right in the driveway ?

posted by WalterAnthony on Mar 05, 2010 at 01:31:43 pm     #  

I don't believe Toledo police will boot vehicles parked in driveways. They will boot vehicles parked on the street and on other public parking areas. This seems lacking. Not enough teeth. Last summer, the city ticketed some homeowners for parking on their own driveways, so why not boot vehicles in the driveways? If it's about enforcing laws and collecting money, this new collection method does not go far enough.

posted by jr on Mar 05, 2010 at 01:40:31 pm     #  

Mar 4, 2010 WTOL story

Before you get the boot, you'll get a letter from the company that operates the red light cameras, Redflex. Chief Navarre says those letters could be out as soon as this month.

From that point you have 30 days to pay your fines. If you don't comply, you go on the boot list.

When you get the boot a $75 mobilization fee will be tacked onto all your other fines.

Once the boot is on your car you have 24 hours to pay up. If not, police will tow your car. That's $125 tow plus a $15 a day storage fee at the tow lot.

Chief Navarre says officers from the traffic division and light duty officers will be used for enforcement. Police will not boot a car on private property, like a driveway. But if you're in a parking lot or on the street, your car is fair game.

Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre says he has a list of 70 people from Toledo who have 10 or more violations. The worst violator is a woman with 42 outstanding tickets.

[This is] part of a plan to recoup some of Toledo's budget woes. There is $3 million in unpaid tickets, and police will be going after offenders and their cash.

Law breakers owe the city money, and they should not be protected because they park on their driveways.

posted by jr on Mar 05, 2010 at 01:57:46 pm     #  

If someone drives to a store, or say a bar and parks in that business's lot, can or will they boot the car as it sits on the business property?

posted by SherryET on Mar 05, 2010 at 04:39:20 pm     #  

"I can't believe how many people on this forum are in support of more gov't control in our lives."

By control, I assume you're talking about controling your speed? Vehicles weigh a lot and can seriously injure or even kill someone elso. I am all for the gov't "controling" how fast some of the idiots on the road go if it means I will get from point A to point B safely.

If one doesn't like getting paying fines for braking these very simple rules of the road, THEN GET OFF THE ROAD.

/end rant

posted by steve155 on Mar 05, 2010 at 04:53:06 pm     #  

Why don't these people who hate law and order move someplace where it doesn't exist?

posted by ilovetoledo on Mar 05, 2010 at 04:54:37 pm     #  

We could give them Alaska?

posted by toledolen_ on Mar 05, 2010 at 05:16:27 pm     #  

how could anyone hate law and order? it's one of the best tv shows ever!

posted by upso on Mar 05, 2010 at 05:19:50 pm     #  

I just read the blade story about the top violator for red light camera infractions has over 40 unpaid red light tickets.
40? Really? Somebody needs to learn how to drive again.

posted by hockeyfan on Mar 05, 2010 at 05:33:54 pm     #  

As posted above from the Mar 4, 2010 WTOL story :

Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre says he has a list of 70 people from Toledo who have 10 or more violations. The worst violator is a woman with 42 outstanding tickets.

posted by jr on Mar 05, 2010 at 06:33:10 pm     #  

Jr, it didn't start with these cameras. Foolish citizenry started accepting governmental control much earlier. The first control in my lifetime was seat belt laws. Those laws were suggested and supported by powerful insurance lobbies. I may be safer wearing such a belt, but my safety affects no one but me and possibly my loved ones. I only wear a seat belt when riding in a convertible. Screw these laws.

Seat belt laws
smoking ban laws
red light cameras

All = government intrusion.

I don't submit to the control of idiots who take my rights away.

posted by jimavolt on Mar 05, 2010 at 09:13:01 pm     #  

Well, just like JR, you guys converted me. More cameras please, because I want the safest city my tax dollars can buy. I'm thinking about running for City Council too. I want to insure everybody is a law-abiding citizen and will base on campaign around public safety. All cars are equiped with "little black boxes" that monitor driving habits, speed, steering, and braking. If I'm elected, those black boxes will have to transmit that data to our central computer before the car will start. If any laws were violated, a citation will be issued. Great revenue and most importantly, safety. And since there are no scufflaws in this forum, I know I can count on your votes.

posted by muddyriverduck on Mar 06, 2010 at 12:26:05 pm     #  

You got my support, muddyriverduck. Toledo's money-grubbing, gotcha, surveillance society is a safer society, and how can anyone be opposed to safety?

To help with your campaign, muddyriverduck, remember the rules of government :

  • First rule: Assume the citizenry are stupid.
  • Second rule: Pass legislation to protect the citizenry from themselves.
  • Third rule: Assume all citizens are criminals.

posted by jr on Mar 06, 2010 at 02:33:36 pm     #  

I believe you could also make the intersections safer by putting a delay between the red light going one direction and the green going the other.

I agree with the accusations that these so-called "safety" cameras are a hidden "fund raiser" for the city. It has nothing to do with safety.

posted by hockeyfan on Mar 06, 2010 at 04:52:05 pm     #  

@madjack - Before you start name-calling, you may want to review your own position on the subject.

1. This is certainly NOT about the denial of due process. Everyone is given an opportunity to appeal. Your entire statement is based on something you made up.

2. There is no wedge. Your big-brother argument holds no water, because our roadways are public, and there is - and never has been - any expectation of privacy on a public roadway.

3. You said "It promotes the apathetic compliance of the populace." The law is the law is the law - as a long-time Libertarian, I believe in civil liberties, and I see no issue with these cameras. Using your logic, you can't have a crime without a witness, right? No cop = no traffic ticket. As a woman, it usually works in my favor to be pulled over (depending on what I'm wearing haha), but a camera is truly unbiased. What better way to ensure fair and equitable enforcement of the law?

posted by Jensta on May 06, 2010 at 01:47:22 pm     #  

::yawn::

Let's see. Jensta:

# Member since: May 06, 2010
# Last logged-in visit: May 06, 2010
# Jensta has contributed to no articles and has submitted 1 comments at the new version of Toledo Talk.

So tell me, who left the cage door open?

posted by madjack on May 06, 2010 at 02:11:39 pm     #  

Madjack:

Your last post is a blatant ad hominem attack. You make no comments regarding the substance of his argument, you just attack the fact that he is a new poster.

As for those who claim that the cameras are unconstitutional, check the caselaw - they have been found to be constitutional over and over again. Often by courts that are notoriously conservative.

Due Process? There is a process for having your grievance heard. Enough said.

The whole safe intersections argument is nothing more than a red herring. Whether the purpose for the cameras is to make intersections safer or to raise revenue is irrelevant. The underlying issue is the fact that the person/car was involved in the commission of a crime/civil offense. Politicians lied about the intent for the cameras? Holy crap! I don't like it, but it doesn't make the cameras unconstitutional or illegal.

A person didn't issue the ticket. So what. When you get stopped for speeding by a cop you are usually being stopped by a machine anyway. In most cases, the officer didn't determine you were driving too fast, the radar gun did.

You weren't driving the car? Also, so what? Ever get a parking ticket? How do they know who was driving the car when it was parked? It doesn't matter - the penalty is civil exactly BECAUSE they don't know who was driving the vehicle when the offense occurred. Are you also arguing that parking tickets should be unconstitutional?

Do we need more government in our lives? Of course not. But, one of the few functions that the government HAS to be involved in is public safety/law enforcement.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on May 06, 2010 at 02:38:46 pm     #  

Aw, hell. Just who rattled your chain, anyway? Why aren't you out chasing ambulances?

From MoreThanRhetoric Before you try to tell me how wrong I am, consider the fact that I am a criminal defense attorney who is also licensed to carry concealed and I graduated from the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy

Yeah, yeah, sure. And you're a black belt in karate, an ex-special forces operative, six feet tall and blindingly handsome... in your dreams, anyway.

In the infinitely tiny possibility that you actually are a criminal defense attorney, first consider that the brand new user opened up a thread that's two months old and that tends to be controversial. How do you suppose he/she/it found the thread? Here's a clue: use Occam's Razor.

Secondly, why the sudden interest? When the thread was active you had plenty of time to wade in. You didn't.

Personally, I don't think you are a criminal defense attorney. I don't think you're an attorney at all. Of course if you'd like to offer a little proof, like a law degree for instance, that would be different.

posted by madjack on May 06, 2010 at 06:26:04 pm     #  

How anyone can like a pure money making operation like this is beyond me. Then again, your city is rapidly rotting from the inside out, I would compare it to Detroit but even Detroit has some better features and is even worse in its failures. Detroit is a fine example to look to for the future of Toledo, keep the same idiots in power and watch the decline and exodus.

posted by Linecrosser on May 06, 2010 at 08:55:13 pm     #  

Again with the ad hominem attacks. Just because I didn't take interest the first go-round - or didn't see the thread because I was busy working - doesn't shed any light on my ability to render a cogent argument.Today it came up at the top of the list so I looked at it.

As for your disbelief as to my credentials, feel free to think what you want. The fact is, nothing I said hinges on my having a law degree - any of the statements I made can be verified.

Also, what does the principle of Occam's Razor (i.e the simplest explanation is the best) have to do with the way a poster finds a thread?

Linecrosser:
I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's illegal/unconstitutional. That was the only argument I was making.

MJ: Is it okay that LC weighed in on the subject

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on May 07, 2010 at 12:58:16 am     #  

Probably not.

posted by Linecrosser on May 07, 2010 at 09:41:29 am     #  

I don't like the cameras simply for the fact that Toledo now gets 55% of the revenue, yet the government says "It's not about money, it's about safety." If the cameras are for increased profit, the city should have the balls to admit it.

Yesterday, I told a friend that the boots on cars in addition to the mark on the credit report seemed like double jeopardy. She looked at me liked I grew a third eye and said, "Then pay your fine! Do you feel sorry for those people (with the booted cars)?"

"Well, no...but it still seems wrong."

posted by inga on May 08, 2010 at 08:26:18 pm     #  

If you will notice, I don't think there is a single intersection in Toledo with emergency vehicle preemption. Whereas podunk towns like Defiance and Tiffin and Findlay (IIRC) have lights that will preempt for emergency vehicles. (Look for the non-camera like sensors and the blue bulbs).

Also check this http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/rlr_report/chap3.cfm and the MUCTD http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

posted by anonymouscoward on May 10, 2010 at 01:57:24 pm     #  

Interesting...

Posting Information to assist someone commit a Felony.

posted by hipiap on May 13, 2011 at 04:32:05 pm     #  

Curious how can booting be legal? It's the person who has the ticket not the car. What if it's a shared car so a persons wife is screwed because the husband got a ticket?

What if you are driving someone else car and don't pay the ticket the other person is screwed getting a boot?

Horrible horrible idea.

posted by INeedCoffee on May 13, 2011 at 05:08:28 pm     #  

Seems to me that starting with the local government then working your way up the ladder that most laws that are passed have the government making money one way or another. The Police, city council members, chief of police, the mayor and so on and so forth. All people who produce nothing but just take from the public, alot of time with an arrogant attitude. It seems the Government expects us to suck their dicks when in reality they should be sucking our dicks. (Hope I can say that).

posted by barfly on May 13, 2011 at 06:27:07 pm     #  

do the crime, pay the time.

posted by toledolen_ on May 14, 2011 at 12:39:02 am     #  

Once upon a time I lived in Atlanta area where booting was prevalent. It is the biggest scam in most instances. At any rate one night I was out and parked in a lot. I made sure that there no signs that stated this was a tow lot or boot or anything stating that I could be fined in any way. Well guess what I came out later to find my car among others booted with magical signs that somehow appeared out of no where. I argued with attendant who by the way was being protected by Atlanta PO. not only was it over $100 but cash. who carries that amount in Atlanta? It was a scam. years later courts found this act to be unlawful. I for one endorse destroying these boots! Viva la revelucion!

posted by douglasadietz on May 14, 2011 at 10:36:23 am     #  

Let me get this straight.
You checked and found no signs to prevent you from parking.
It was night.
You returned to find signs and boots on cars.
There was suddenly an attendant with whom you argued, but police were there also.

Something's missing from this story.

posted by hockeyfan on May 14, 2011 at 02:18:43 pm     #  

Hockey seen it in Baltimore too.

posted by dbw8906 on May 14, 2011 at 03:02:04 pm     #  

Sounds too bizarre to be true for me.

Either way, another reason to give more respect to TPD. They don't do that type of crap.

posted by hockeyfan on May 15, 2011 at 03:00:06 pm     #  

Nothing is missing from the story. It was a scam. I have no idea why atl pd were protecting them...maybe hired off duty but like I said the signs appeared later at night and eventually courts found these types of booting to be illegal. So no, there isn't anything missing from the story. If it happened to I imagine u would have been pissed too.

posted by douglasadietz on May 15, 2011 at 10:46:33 pm     #  

You were parking illegally. Obviously someone didn't want you parking where you were.
The booting might have been found to be illegal, but it sounds like you parked in a private lot where the owner finally got pissed enough to do something about it. While drastic with the boots, you still shouldn't have parked there. What made you believe you could park there? Was there a sign saying "Free Parking"?
You still don't address what time of day this was, where you were going, or how an attendant suddenly appeared with signs. Now, you state that the signs appeared later at night. So the signs weren't there "suddenly" when you returned to your car?

Sorry to doubt you but I've worked at a business located beside a bar. People thought that just because there was a lot beside the bar, they could use it to park. They urinated in it, broke bottles, left cars there, etc. I wish I would have booted the cars parked there. People get ignorant and think they can do anything.

Bit of advice. When looking for a place to park, use a paid lot or parking meter. If you're looking to "sneak" into a free spot that's not marked, you're gonna get caught.

posted by hockeyfan on May 16, 2011 at 10:13:28 am     #  

Wrong wrong wrong. Look around Toledo. Every lot whether a shopping center, vacant lot or pay lot states the ordinance of the OH revised code for towing etc...or a minimum of unauthorized parking signage with the tow co's #. Tow companies will do nothing without signs posted at each entrance/exit...trust me I know as someone that deals w/commercial property.

Obviously GA laws and OH Laws can vary but they typically follow the same route. If it was a place that didn't allow people to park why wouldn't there be permanent signs posted? The obvious answer is they ran a scam to make money. Your defense of this action can only lead me to believe you are a questionable person, otherwise why justify under handed practices as these?

I am not one to take what I can for free, I would have paid for a pay lot had there been one. Don't make uninformed statements about my actions as if I knew I would be towed regardless of the lack of posted signage. Booting was a prevalent action in Atlanta so its not like I didn't know about it. I never knew they posted signs at their convenience in order to scam someone for a quick $100...obviously a scam. I follow rules like anyone else...why do I go 65 on highway....because the speed limit is posted.

posted by douglasadietz on May 16, 2011 at 08:44:58 pm     #  

drama

posted by toledolen_ on May 16, 2011 at 11:37:08 pm     #  

oh no, it sounds really legit. I'm putting the facts together now.

1-At the legion of doom, the evil doers need to raise money by scamming people.
2-They order 10 boots for cars. At over $500 a boot, that totals $5000. A very wise investment.
3-They clear their lot of "No parking" signs and hide in the bushes.
4-After the lot gets full, they carefully place all 10 boots on cars.
5-They also put up all kinds of "No parking" signs and call the cops for protection.
6-At over $100 a ticket, they only have to do this 5 times to get their money back. And of course they only boot and ticket people who don't know how to call an attorney. And, of course, the local police don't question why they have to continually show up at a parking lot for protection.
A perfect million dollar scam.

That is hilarious. About how many boots did this villain have? Here's a link to a place that sells boots. They're like over $500 each.

http://www.parkingzone.com/category/wheelboots.html

Seriously, I did a quick search for car boot scams in Atlanta. Here's what I found.
This link is a complaint about a booting situation. But, the drivers parked at a phone store, then went across the street to have lunch. While still parked at the phone store. They got booted for $50. Seems to me that parking spots are at a premium in Atlanta and if you abuse them, you get the "boot".
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/car-booting--atlanta-ga-c27564.html

Here's another link that wants people to boycott certain businesses that use the car booting service. Once again though, the car is only booted if you abuse the parking lot.

http://fighttheboot.blogspot.com/2009/10/car-booting-atlanta-ga-complaints-5000.html

And yet another complaint. This person parked in another lot and went shopping elsewhere too. Guess what? Yep, they got the boot. They even acknowledge that there was a sign stating not to park there, but they didn't pay attention to it.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/miscellaneous-companies/eps/eps-shops-around-lenox-parking-b52c7.htm

and lastly, an attorney is suing a boot company over his "booting". If you read the entire article, they say that the council probably won't change the boot law, but maybe the fine.

http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/13033588/article-Lawyer-files-lawsuit-over-vehicle-booting?instance=secondary_story_left_column#ixzz1LpGSHEhr

If you have a link or story about what you speak of then great. But according to what I've read, people are parking where they shouldn't be and unlike other places, they go directly to the boot.

posted by hockeyfan on May 16, 2011 at 11:53:18 pm     #  

Login or create an account to post a comment.